No. Some are born smarter, more athletic, some have a good singing voice, others might have a better sense of smell. It’s when we start raising the status of certain abilities and attributes above others that our inequalities become a problem. No one is better or worse than another simply because our culture has decided that certain attributes should be given a higher status than others.

I don’t believe that we were created, and I don’t believe that we’re all equals, if you ask cultural and social disposition, but since we’re all humans, I sure as hell believe that we have the capacity, for lack of a better world, to be all equals. It’s kind of ironic that said attribute is what spawns the dog eats dog world which I personally believe we answer to.

We do not all have the same innate talents. We were not all born with the same IQ or the same potential.

In order for “all men to be created equal,” we would have to be identical.

This does not mean that everyone should not have the same chance to succeed. Unfortunately, that is not so. Some are born with a setback based on ethnicity, social status, how much money their family has, family itself (being raised by one drug addicted parent vs. raised by a two parent, supportive family) educational level of their parents, places they are born into (ghetto vs country club, for instance), and more.

Of course, what a person does with these setbacks is not set in stone. Sadly, things are not equal there either. Some have to struggle much harder to achieve their goals.

Even if we wanted to we couldn’t. Just having so many people would make that an administrative nightmare.

To the original question: It depends what you mean.
“Are all people equally good at each thing.” Of course not. Thats why we have people getting better grades, people better at sports, etc…

“Are all people equally good in total?” In other words – is it true that if you are bad at one thing (say sports) you are good at something else (say school). Here, I would still say no. Some people are just awesome in so many ways and some just seem to be bad at everything they try. However, I’d say most people have some good traits.

“Should all people be treated equally?” Yes, but this is difficult. This doesn’t mean that you pay everyone the same amount at a job. You pay people based on how well they do their job. But, each person should be given a chance to succeed at their job. Or, if you prefer, you don’t give everyone the same grades, you grade them on their work. But, everyone should be given a chance to do their work and succeed at it. Also, we shouldn’t discriminate based on race, gender, etc… In other words, give people a chance to prove themselves and let them reap the rewards if they do.

“Are all people treated equally?” Sadly, no. Women often get paid less for doing the same work. There are still racists around. People from one country often look down on people from another country. Etc…

Still, as @jaytkay said, things are getting better. Its slow, since you are fighting against a few millennium of inequality, but progress is good.

Side note: I used people instead of men here. I assume thats what you mean.

@roundsquare There is a difference between being created (that is“arriving on the scene” as a member of the human species), and what happens after that. All men are created equal if we remember what is meant by the phrase. The fact that all men’s lives unfold differently is the way it is. No amount of engineering can change that. It is interesting to me that, as a general statement, the same people who condemn mankind for tinkering with nature, insist that mankind tinker with the nature of mankind. A tragic contradiction.

@roundsquare Sort of. No big deal you understand. Your well thought out and well composed answer seems to summarize much of what is discussed in thread, but does not actually answer the question as asked. Not a criticism, just a comment on the thread. There is very little discussion about the nature of man’s arrival as a member of the species, which is what the founders meant when Jefferson wrote “all men are created equal”. The phrase is meant to contrast the the notion of the divine right of Kings, which was a prevailing thought at the time. BTW, Jefferson borrowed the phrase from his neighbor.
In that context, all men ARE created equal.
What they do after that, or what fortunes or misfortunes befall them after that, are really not anything that anybody can control.
Per your example, women (usually) make less than men because employers for whatever reason have decided that their labor is worth less. It is no different than the fact that some automobiles can get a higher market price than others. There may not be that much fundamental differences in engineering, construction, etc. but people will pay more for a BMW than a Ford because they have decided it is more valuable. If everybody thought that every thing in the world had equal value than all cars would cost the same, all people would be paid the same, all restaurant tabs would be the same, every bottle of wine would cost the same. But nothing has intrinsic value. Value is established by a “valuer”.
All men are “created” equal, but all men are not evaluated equally. The evaluation part of existence occurs AFTER creation.
People are answering this question as if it was phrased…“all men are evaluated equally”.

@ItsAHabit It is nice if that occurs, and we all dream of a day when it does But that is a separate topic. The phrase in the Declaration does not refer to that. It is there as a rebuttal to the notion that kings (or government in the abstract) are better than everybody else as a matter of their birth. That is why the Founders believed that they were on solid moral ground to defy King George.

Not physically or mentally, but before God and abstract concepts like Law.
I find the inclusion of the term in the Declaration of Independence to be beautifully optimistic, choosing to believe in an ideal world instead of sticking with the current one.